IETF Logo Mail Archive

[pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5272 (8137)

Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com> Tue, 29 October 2024 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <debcooley1@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pkix@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A7CC151084 for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.853
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.853 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ys4tc0AQPyZQ for <pkix@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A12C0C14E513 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7cd8803fe0aso3886273a12.0 for <pkix@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1730216486; x=1730821286; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=4lqu+rhlnxW66YbdWL2t7P+TSCsnif7eA74Rq64s59A=; b=lrfheXbUAFDAJHUE1n2JxMkoW9XWxHFA/MkGug0axImCvV+yqPUNet7j8lNpxnnw3k uzpOtwtGIl2YtZYfjtjw8QwDbqdO8iEwraoGWNco3Wr2CqjGlT0tNv43WVFhvhfwRNVy W1UmaLdJ7TtizlgJFaXuBGv23bHQac3oK1KYLTTP5YjXYqFndTzMG5od9EdMPMIsFy0j oGyfeuYD4sV/FC/jEsCKJ8IJgjasKGltHRdAM7shbd+gfzmKXwDwvtPHiDgf5y8/jmXa qdhkGRq3iANDIgTx+uAgrMAU5clRewo7l9sO0Dmcl2y5y+5vqu3VVF4XxIgRJMVGkoyN Fbbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1730216486; x=1730821286; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=4lqu+rhlnxW66YbdWL2t7P+TSCsnif7eA74Rq64s59A=; b=q08UIkBVzdBmnPPz4In379a2kNjGKg0LwJ1jQGcvBjZZ3bZifDG4y+DB78dF0UH5R/ 8ghBAhf8J9yUjJ+eG+HjxPPFPcMhOzuyb3LG1ZOqpgFgO+zV3qcBa3QNCT5KaBSe4K/V d3lJGzih7jpQE0iO2v8kAn3B7aGUw4OPHvDos/9HZEL8WKt+cpcXTgjbPRVjQDDgB6iI wNahmMT4hyIHmPnytwBv5+A6jHFpCpmj5teaajsyrLUNC2wDHuHS3l1oK0lwwyhdXMRB OWaOHS0MiEBk8hCuEIZTPRMHevL/Y6qDcPNqr92ow8uq4G+tImLx03rlfUxko+bXXsSw fPEg==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCW6gMftfQ0ARS5OwtuqQHRkAzJSFgN53cQVmBR83CJvzk1Un7oHHEy8iyZV3+K5rYojwiA4@ietf.org
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzZY6D72bw+A4ip0YRPEaPCS00mmM4KWJ72keZZGVl0ziE22cmA 6vQlkuyTPNtHPM3SOa74wOVj4k+UF90z0iqETkoEFeP4WfYmnxX/Hr7R4Ak546c2E7efR5jo0Oi n1bRuw1x9L6FxlBfaac1K5fmTgg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHOtfmt88RkmFbPyHKzIXLbXbS9NE3/VdvnXtkFlSNOe9carbToxkmbsXDiu2gFz+7Obhr0PmlgBHf7Ejwada8=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7845:b0:2e9:20d8:4140 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e92cf2dc33mr1765a91.26.1730216485668; Tue, 29 Oct 2024 08:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20241012103614.AF2F83B873@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
In-Reply-To: <20241012103614.AF2F83B873@rfcpa.rfc-editor.org>
From: Deb Cooley <debcooley1@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 11:41:09 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGgd1OdJjPFDrK1gU_Phow_-z-HomBBHFQZeUHAE_S7i1UPjVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, pkix@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003561f06259f6b1e"
Message-ID-Hash: KB5IC2IUUDJVILYYWTRISITTDBIZHGTU
X-Message-ID-Hash: KB5IC2IUUDJVILYYWTRISITTDBIZHGTU
X-MailFrom: debcooley1@gmail.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-pkix.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: mmyers@fastq.com, paul.wouters@aiven.io, kent@bbn.com, stefan@aaa-sec.com, David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [pkix] Re: [Technical Errata Reported] RFC5272 (8137)
List-Id: PKIX Working Group <pkix.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pkix/5C2pS1CO0Z41YEUNzPcZcwxc2-U>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pkix>
List-Help: <mailto:pkix-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pkix-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:pkix@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pkix-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pkix-leave@ietf.org>

opinions?

Deb

On Sat, Oct 12, 2024 at 6:36 AM RFC Errata System <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>
wrote:

> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC5272,
> "Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)".
>
> --------------------------------------
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8137
>
> --------------------------------------
> Type: Technical
> Reported by: David von Oheimb <David.von.Oheimb@siemens.com>
>
> Section: C.1
>
> Original Text
> -------------
> NoSignatureValue contains the hash of the certification request.
>
> Corrected Text
> --------------
> NoSignatureValue contains the SHA-1 hash value of the certification
> request.
> The hash value given by NoSignatureValue SHOULD be ignored.
>
> Notes
> -----
> The hash value was not sufficiently defined because the choice of the hash
> algorithm was not specified.
> At that time presumably the use of SHA-1 was implied.
>
> I suggest requiring SHA-1 here simply for backward compatibility.
> From today's perspective more flexibility may be demanded and SHA-1 likely
> no more is the best choice.
>
> Anyway I see no real value in NoSignatureValue (pun intended), so it
> should not matter.
> For this reason I propose ignoring the hash value.
>
> Instructions:
> -------------
> This erratum is currently posted as "Reported". (If it is spam, it
> will be removed shortly by the RFC Production Center.) Please
> use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or
> rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party
> will log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary.
>
> --------------------------------------
> RFC5272 (draft-ietf-pkix-2797-bis-07)
> --------------------------------------
> Title               : Certificate Management over CMS (CMC)
> Publication Date    : June 2008
> Author(s)           : J. Schaad, M. Myers
> Category            : PROPOSED STANDARD
> Source              : Public-Key Infrastructure (X.509)
> Stream              : IETF
> Verifying Party     : IESG
>

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status